Friday, January 30, 2004

The British government is doing many things right in formulating
nanotechnology policy, as I've written
before, but this
article (registration required) in the Times Higher Education
Supplement indicates that they've picked up a few bad habits. As it is
for their American cousins, the British government is trying to regulate and
legislate before it's been properly educated. This can lead to some
inconsistent, or even bizarre, policies. Here's an excerpt from the
Times article:

Robert Key, Conservative MP for Salisbury, told (Science
Minister David Sainsbury): "There is only
one thing that is absolutely clear about government policy on
nanotechnology
- that it is chaotic and it is being made up as it goes along."

The Department for Trade and Industry was originally
basing its
nanotechnology policy upon a strategy report written by Sir John
Taylor, the
former director general of the research councils, which was published
in
June 2002. This called for urgent government action, including the
setting
up of two national centres.

But Lord Sainsbury admitted that when this report was
drafted, the
government understood "very much less about what was going on" in
nanotechnology.

In the United States, this chaotic, scattered process produced
a nanotechnology
act (PDF, 56.1 KB), signed by the president, that is being promoted
as a down-to-earth, realistic piece of legislation that does not stray
into speculative fiction, yet also includes safeguards against
"potential use of nanotechnology in enhancing human intelligence and in
developing artificial intelligence which exceeds human capacity."

While it seems strange that this possibility was not deemed
too "sci-fi" to remain in the bill, I can see why some legislators
would feel threatened by such technology.

Thursday, January 29, 2004

Conversation snippet (After I had referred to
this "Quixotic" quest for a molecular assembler, amid all the talk of
investments, pants and profits.)

Eric
Drexler

"Regarding the quest for molecular machine systems able to do
programmable mechanosynthesis, this isn't Quixotic (it isn't pursuing
an illusion -- using this word says that the goal isn't real), and it
isn't a quest that I've been pursuing. If my aim had been to promote
MNT, I'd have focused more on implementation and less on describing
long-term systems and their consequences -- and I'd have said far less
about the downsides. At present, I think that the failure of the U.S.
to focus on developing artificial molecular machine systems is a
strategic error of the first rank, but that's another matter."

Me

"I've been thinking a bit about the term
"Quixotic," and could see why you would not want your quest to be
characterized in that way, since it implies that it's an impossible
dream. Just remember, though, the theories of Copernicus were mocked as
impossible. Then Galileo, a contemporary of Cervantes, picked up where
Copernicus left off and was not only told that it was impossible that
the earth could revolve around the sun, but was forced to just shut up
about his theories because, G-d forbid, if the heavens and the
firmament were not exactly as the Holy Church said it was, why there
would be mass confusion in the streets!"

Well, now, where to begin? My recent rantings
have rippled up and down the nanosphere and have had a far larger
influence on the public debate over nanotech's future than I had ever
expected. Scary. I'll take it from the top, but stay with it until the
end, since there's a narrative flow with a bizarre ending.

I wrote a column in Small Times. Mark Modzelewski of the
NanoBusiness Alliance, wrote an opposing column in Small Times. Both
were excerpted in this
blog entry, which I'll further encapsulate here:

Then the nanoblogosphere (I just made up that term) rumbled and roared:

Chris Phoenix of the Center
for Responsible Nanotechnology:"Politics these days seems to be more about smearing your
opponents
than about presenting actual facts. Mark Modzelewski says that we've
cooked up a conspiracy theory with a "devious cabal." What we actually
said is that the wording was changed
deliberately and blatantly."

Chris will likely have more to say in a letter to the editor
for the next print edition of Small
Times magazine.

From a blogger who chooses to remain
anonymous:"I resent this insuation. It's totally inaccurate. I work out
of my
mom's den, not her basement."

From blogger DF
MooreThe idea of Drexler's nanobots is indeed a cool one. I agree.
It seems
exciting. But it would be ridiculous to base national nanotech policy
on achieving something that, as I said before, no one has shown any
scientific reason as to why they should work and plenty of people have
shown scientific reasons as to why the won't work. The commercial
approach that we have now works well. It allows the field to develop on
many different tangents and in all directions.

From blogger Marc
Goodner"I think this act is another example of government largesse
to
corporate interests, no surprise from this administration. If this
money had gone to academic research, and the ip to the public domain,
without preordained conclusions society would be better off."

Chris Peterson of the Foresight Institute,
writing in Nanodot:"Note to Mark M.: it is a risky thing to make fun of
bloggers--they can
make a difference. Just ask Trent Lott, the former Senate majority leader."

Robert Bradbury, writing in my discussion
section:"The problem Howard is that tens of millions of lives,
perhaps even
yours, are likely to be on the line depending on how fast robust
molecular nanotechnology (of the Drexlerian type) develops. I'm one of
the few people who has actually tried to sketch out a possible
development path with costs."

Glenn Reynolds, writing in Tech Central
Station:"I think that if the nanotechnology business community,
because of the
PR strategy that it has chosen, finds itself scissored between the
scientists and visionaries on one side, and the environmentalists on
the other, it will have cause to regret its rather shortsighted PR
strategy."

Then, it gets really bizarre on Glenn's InstaPundit,
in which Mark shot off this letter:
"Clearly being educated man, I can hardly even fathom how you take
Drexler's fantasies and turn them into reality in your head. As far as
our "pr strategy" as you call it-its not so much pr strategy as a
'reality strategy.' I don't promote nor spend much time worrying about
science fiction and frankly don't even view the
zettatechnology/molecular manufacturing/Foresight folks thinking as on
the table in the environmental debate. I am clearly not between two
poles, as your misguided views on the subject frankly don't constitute
a pole in the landscape as far as I see it. I would say my skills as a
long time political damage control specialist leave me -all ego aside -
a little better skilled then Howard Lovy or yourself at these type of
things. So just the same, I will actually be the one with a degree of
sympathy here. Keep fighting the -strange-if not good fight for your
lost
cause."

Monday, January 26, 2004

This wasn't originally intended to have been a point-counterpoint on the nanotech bill, but it just turned out that way. Enjoy.

Me

"While I’m fascinated by the argument over whether self-replicating
nanomachines are possible – especially with strong personalities like
Drexler and Smalley taking opposing views – the debate is completely
beside the point. It’s a distraction from the central question of why
this first-ever piece of nanotechnology legislation was conceived,
written, altered and sold purely as a business proposition."

"What the bill does not do has been seemingly pondered by bloggers, Drexlerians,
pseudo-pundits, panderers and other denizens of their
mom’s basements more than its revolutionary benefits. They have
developed an elaborate fantasy about how molecular manufacturing
research work was pulled from the bill by some devious cabal.

If only it was that exciting. In a nutshell, the bill had
many iterations, changes and attempted changes. Even a new nanobio
center was floated around. These efforts were shelved in order to
create a dynamic bill with a strong framework and an ability to adjust
to evolving research and market developments built on top of the strong
foundation put in place by the Bush administration and the National
Nanotechnology Initiative team."

Friday, January 23, 2004

From the Seattle
PI: Tom Simpson of Northwest Venture Associates says, "I am
starting to warm up to the opportunities within nanotechnology," while
Chad Waite of OVP Venture Partners says, "NanoTech is a total bubble.
This
stuff is a long ways away." Meanwhile, Jim Breyer of Accel Partners
tells the Mercury
News, "When you see the first
nanotech company go public, run
for the hills.''

Thursday, January 22, 2004

R.U.
Sirius, who has an impressive track record of spotting cultural and
technological trends years before the rest of the media pick up on it,
has posted an interview with me on his neofiles Webzine. Mr. Sirius gave me tons of room to rant and gussied it up with
some very pretty pictures. R.U. gave me the chance to expand on what it
is I'm trying to accomplish on this blog and in some of my other work.
Here's a clip:

NEOFILES: Howard, you’re one of the main editors of a
daily webzine dedicated to the nanotech industry and then you do a nano
blog besides. How did you become so obsessed with nanotechnology and
what sustains your obviously intense interest?

HOWARD LOVY: Well, like most journalists, I’m an
expert
at nothing myself, except maybe at describing, in understandable terms,
what the real experts are up to. I spent most of my career as a
general-interest newspaper journalist, but also wrote a great deal
about Jewish and Mideast issues. My personal background gave me some
genetic insight into the topic, but writing about it also allowed me to
take a look at any issue from the perspective of an “outsider,” making
me naturally question the base assumptions that motivate any society,
culture, government or majority opinion. So, my natural inclination is
to look at any issue of public concern — especially ones in which there
appears to be a monolithic opinion — and find those who begin with a
whole different set of assumptions or beliefs. I’ve always thought that
was the role of journalism — not to confirm for the majority what they
already believe, but to make them constantly question their own
assumptions by exposing them to the minority opinion. That’s the only
way a free society can be certain it’s making the right decisions, by
being forced to defend it. ...

So, I launched Howard Lovy’s NanoBot in the summer of
2003, and I’m just amazed at how widely it’s being read and how
influential it’s becoming. That tells me there’s a hunger for this
perspective on nanotech — not only the financial aspects — and I’ll
keep using it to question, prod and annoy those who believe they know
everything there is to know about it.

Monday, January 19, 2004

It's obvious that business and government have a bad case of DNA PTSD,
or genetic shell shock, which is why they certainly won't get fooled
again when it comes to nanotechnology. I've heard the mantra many times
during the past few years: "No More GMO." But the chanters wear
pinstripes and not patchouli oil.

Public outcry (especially in Europe) against genetically
modified organisms was the result of a determined effort between
science, business and government to completely misread the public. It
took some serious brainpower, collusion and planning to so totally miss
the point on what gets the masses all fired up, and the important role
public perception plays in the introduction of any new technology. The
biggest mistake was the arrogant assumption that the public will accept
as inherently good anything that helps big biotech companies succeed
and farmers increase their yields. What was missing from the equation,
of course, was consideration of how the public "feels" about genetic
manipulation.

The right has a problem with "playing God," while the left
doesn't want the corporate world messing with Mother Nature. The result
is that it could take a generation or two to undo the damage done to
public acceptance of scientific progress.

If you're curious about how and why this happened, PBS is
running an excellent series on the history of DNA, and last night I
caught some of the episode
that deals with genetically modified organisms. The PBS site's "gallery
of genetic modifications" is especially well done, stating the issues
concisely and with flair.

It goes into the Flavr Savr tomato, created by the
biotechnology company Calgene, and accompanying "rumors and horror
stories [that] mention square tomatoes or tomatoes that glow in the
dark."

By the time the Human Genome Project came along in the late
'90s, the lesson had been learned. That's when the phrase "societal and
ethical implications" became part of the government lexicon.

I recently had a talk with Kevin Ausman,
executive director of the Center for Biological and Environmental
Nanotechnology at Rice University, who explained some of this
historical context to me.

The study of societal and ethical implications, he said, is
now an embedded part of most government nanotechnology programs, and
it's a direct descendent of the Human Genome Project, where science,
government and business had amazingly learned from their mistakes.

"The scientists involved in the Human Genome Project weren't
really aware, until lots of surveys and things were done by the social
scientists, that privacy issues were going to be the public hot-button
issue," Ausman said. "In hindsight it makes a lot of sense."

And it paid off in broader public acceptance and trust. "You
do a comparison of the Human Genome Project to genetically modified
organisms, and it's just incredible the difference in public
perception, and I believe pretty strongly that's directly attributable
to the money and the good-faith effort that went into studies about
societal and ethical implications," he said.

One more thing about DNA on PBS
that I think could echo into nanotech's future. The documentary
describes the "golden rice" debacle in which Monsanto essentially made
overblown claims that it has found the solution to malnourishment. Long
story short: "According to a 1999 report in the Financial Times,
African countries in particular are 'wary of increasing dependence on
developed countries and multinational corporations as a result of
genetically modified crops.'"

A number of efforts are about to get under way that involve
selling the idea of nanotechnology to developing nations, including
those in Africa, as a means of solving local problems. Nanotechnology
proponents are telling them that nano is no GMO. There doesn't need to
be a Great White Monsanto to dole out its product. Developing nations
can grow their own nanotech industry and tailor it to their own needs.
It's true, but nanotech proponents will first need to penetrate more
than a few layers of mistrust.

Friday, January 16, 2004

It's a NanoWorld was
created through a collaboration between the Nanobiotechnology Center,
(an NSF supported Science and Technology Center), the Sciencenter (a
hands-on science museum in Ithaca NY) and Painted Universe (a design
fabrication firm in Lansing NY).

The effort began some three years ago
with two very simple questions that we posed to somewhere around 100
kids.

What is the smallest thing that you can see?

What is the smallest thing that you can think of?

The majority of
kids especially those that attend science museums like the Sciencenter
was pretty much uniform. The smallest thing that they could see was
also the smallest thing that they could think of. Granted the questions
were perhaps leading but the world that is 'too small to see' is one of
great mystery to kids and one of the greatest challenges to kids
understanding nanotechnology. Or even microtechnology.

So 'It's a
Nanoworld' focuses on the microscopic world and hopefully kids start to
gain an understanding of the world that is too small to see and the
tools that are used to see it (microscopes, magnifying glasses, etc).
We also introduce visitors to the technology used to make small things
largely photolithographic based techniques.

'It's a NanoWorld' is not
about nanobots, molecular manufacturing or anything along those lines
but rooted in some fundamental concepts of size and scale and current
technology. But more importantly the exhibition is fun, kids get
engaged, adults read the signs and the communicate with their kids
about the science.

We are very proud to have 'It's a Nanoworld' at INNOVENTIONS
at Epcot. It represents one of the first opportunities for
a non-commercial organization at this venue and it gives the public the
chance to see the grand things that National Science Foundation
supports. The NSF and we at the NBTC take our mission to engage the
public very seriously believing that kids represent the future and that
a more scientifically literate population is able to better judge the
promise and potential challenges of emerging technology.

What we've been saying about nanotech for the past ... oh
... 15
years. Nanotechnology will always be 10 years in the future.

Another reader disagreed:

Nope. When "Engines of Creation" was published in the '80s,
the
prediction was mid 21st century. Now, they are saying that if Moore's
law continues it's path, it will be here by 2020, perhaps as early as
2010.

You gotta love that ol' mouse. Seventy-five years after Steamboat Willie,
he's still steering our kids into uncharted waters.

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Good day. I read your blog frequently and enjoy it thoroughly
(long time listener, first time caller). On the nanotube/rats story, I am pleased that DuPont is
weighing in on the subject. I have worked in the chemical/materials
industry for some time. A few years ago, we founded a nanotube
manufacturing company (SWeNT) with
the University of Oklahoma and ConocoPhillips.

All's not quiet on the nanogame front. This
just in from TotalVideoGames.com: A new PlayStation2 game called
"Nanobreaker." Here's the premise:

In a story that bears an uncanny resemblance to the story of
The Matrix, in the futuristic world of ‘Nanobreaker’, Nano-technology
was originally developed to enrich humankind, but the nanomachines
suddenly went awry. The machines began to harvest the blood of humans
and the iron of buildings in an effort to construct an army of monster
machines. It's up to the player to combat this threat and save the
world from apocalypse.

Add NanoBreaker to the growing
list of "bad" nano impressions that the government is going to
attempt to "correct." Sounds to me like the children have already been
assimilated. Don't despair, though. Think of it this way: Did the "Star Trek" Generation
really view the show as a documentary? Or did it simply fire up the
imagination? From the vantage of a few technology revolutions later,
I'd say the latter.

"A reader affiliated with the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office challenged me recently on some of my commentaries on molecular manufacturing as a policy goal. The reader said that government funded research on "nanoscale manufacturing" is already under way, pointing me to theseprojects ... As the NNCO reader pointed out, though, there is research going on in molecular manufacturing -- even government-sponsored research ..."

You have been misled by your nameless reader. These projects will not result in molecular manufacturing because they don't aim to develop systems of nanomachines that fabricate atomically precise products by mechanically positioning and joining molecules. Saying that this sort of "nanoscale manufacturing" (lithography, microscale chemical engineering, etc.) is molecular manufacturing is like saying that a paper airplane is a passenger jet. The misrepresentations continue.

It's interesting to see how quickly the story is changing. One day we're told that there's no issue because the goal is impossible; the next day we're told that there's no issue because research is already underway. Amazingly, the NNCO sponsors no research whatsoever aimed at the original goal of nanotechnology. With this policy, it cannot deliver on the original promise of the field or fulfill the widespread expectations held by the public. Pretending otherwise compounds the damage.

Monday, January 12, 2004

Notes from my secret lab-OR-atry: Our experiment in bottom-up manufacturing has entered a new phase, as this mass of molecules begins to look more and more "human." We have identified gender. In the photograph at left, an arrow points toward a protrusion that I have code-named "schmeckle," indicating that the creature is developing along male gender lines. In the photo at right, it almost appears as though the beast is not only self-aware, but happy (the photo has been enhanced to highlight this feature). Perhaps the smirk on its face would not be so evident if it only knew of the names that friends have suggested for it. They include: Martian, Peppercorn, Louie Larry Lovy and Fonzie. Well, we have until June 13 to decide on the name. If you have any thoughts, please send me a memo.

Saturday, January 10, 2004

The nano meme continues to pick up steam. I'm among the Pong generation, so I might be lost in this game space, but it's clear that game programmers and marketers know a cool prefix when they hear it. So, in no particular order, here are some of the latest games and videos with a nano theme:

You're Alex D., a nanotech-enhanced agent whose gender you choose at the start of the game, and just like JC, you in the middle of a tense battle for the future of planet Earth. The WTO is the primary caretaker of the world these days (they're also the outfit that trained you), but a new religion, known as the Order, has increased its political power in recent years. (It also may or may not be behind a [nanotech] terrorist attack that just leveled Chicago, but let's worry about that later.)"

"The WTO is calling on him to report back to headquarters, but he also has a friend in the Order who says that the WTO's using him as a guinea pig for their experiments and that he should desert that scene as soon as possible.

Nanotechnology is one of the current hot topics in various fields of science and medicine. Essentially, the idea is that small machines can be made and programmed to perform a host of different tasks, sight unseen, with endless possibilities. Recent television shows, including Andromeda and Jake 2.0 explore some applications of such technology, albeit by greatly advancing what we can do today. A newly released OVA anime series, Zaion: I Wish You Were Here 1: Epidemic, explores the idea in another way, this time as a means to combat an alien virus."

The premise of the show was that a meteor crashed into the Earth and deposited a virus; much like in the mainstream hit Species. The virus invades the cells of people and turns them into powerful monsters.

Episode One: Encounter: The world is under attack from a virus thought to have come from a meteor. The scientists dealing with it dub it M34 as it's the 34th strain of virus originating from the source and it has fought all attempts at a cure. The world governments keep it a secret in order to prevent mass panic, and the group CURE is empowered to use any means necessary to wage a battle against its victims. The military arm of the organization, NOA, is full of soldiers who are treated with nanotechology and have tiny machines coursing through their veins that repair damage and form a protective body armor/weapon system to fight the enemy.

Episode two: Soon, it is discovered that the virus is adapting to the nanobots and no one is safe.

The Zaion series leaves many details unexplored, but it skims across a few pertinent details—the NOA soldiers are nanotech-enhanced warriors whose bloodstreams are filled with microscopic "nano machines." In times of stress, those robots flock to the skin, extrude through the sweat glands, and expand to form armor."

Of course, a planet composed entirely of artificial intelligences has been done before, but the ideas here are strong ones, particularly the idea of nano-technology being used like a virus to infect and control the galaxy."

James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing once again finds the world's greatest secret agent fighting to save the world from a diabolical madman; former KGB agent Nikolai Diavolo. Armed with metal-eating nanotech, Diavolo's private army will steamroll the forces of the free world, unless Bond and CIA agent Mya Starling can stop Diavolo's forces in Egypt, Peru and New Orleans, culminating in a deadly battle beneath Moscow's Red Square!"

There's more, but I'll save them for later. Meanwhile, I'm introducing crass commercialism into the NanoBot. Click the links to the right, and pieces of nano culture can be yours.

Friday, January 09, 2004

I went to Epcot in 1982, the year it opened, and my geeky teenage brain was marvelously entertained, although many of the "predictions" just never materialized. I wonder what the next generation will say about the nanotechnology exhibit that just opened.

I'm sure this exhibit, developed by Cornell and Ithaca Sciencenter will inspire some young minds. Boy this looks fun! It looks like a "Fantastic Voyage" type trip for 5- to 8-year-olds, which sounds incredibly unjust to big kids like me, who would love to check out the "giant blood drop" and play Adventures in Tiny Things!

It runs until March 1. I doubt I'll get down to Florida, so, please, if you're in kindergarten through third grade and you're sneaking onto Mom or Dad's computer to read a nano blog, check out the exhibit for me and report back! (Also, you really need to get out a bit more).

Thursday, January 08, 2004

This Reuters report on how nanotubes will kill you (if you're a rat) was a prelude to Nanotox 2004 next week in the U.K. The news conference was a way to generate some media buzz in advance and get reporters all jazzed up over an event at the Royal Microscopical Society. Of course, Small Times' man in London will be there, so you can expect some first-rate reporting, with proper context.

The British scientists, meanwhile, were telling rat tales, pointing to DuPont toxicologist David Warheit's recent study on the toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in rats.

I'll cut to the chase on the tale of the rats.The study concludes, in part:

"Exposures to high-dose (5 mg/kg) SWCNT produced mortality in ~15% of the SWCNT-instilled rats within 24 h postinstillation. This mortality resulted from mechanical blockage of the upper airways by the instillate and was not due to inherent pulmonary toxicity of the instilled SWCNT particulate."

Kevin Ausman CBEN's executive director, supplied me with a wonderfully understandable translation during a conversation I had with him a month ago in Chicago:

What that means is that if you look at just the cross-sections of the lungs, "Uh-oh. Bad things are happening." If you look at the biochemistry of what's going, almost nothing seems to be going on. And so the normal biochemical tags for, "something bad is happening" aren't telling something bad is happening."

Here's my translation of the translation: The rats were definitely dead (and I believe they are still dead, although I have yet to confirm this). The nanotubes were definitely the guilty party. But the late rodents met their rat makers by suffocation, and not necessarily from any poison in the tiny tubes.

Plus, what the researchers did, as Ausman explained it to me, was basically disperse the nanotubes into a soap-and-water solution and inject it into the lungs, avoiding the whole issue of how the nanotubes ever got there in the first place.

This is how science works. Small steps, each study building on the conclusions of others. Nanotubes might, as the slogan goes these days, turn out to be the "next asbestos," but it is far too early to convict them of anything except being in the wrong rats at the wrong time.

For more on DuPont and nanotubes, here's an excellent report from The News Journal of Delaware. And more background can be found on Small Times here and here.

You want to know what we're talking about here, listen to my man Mike Treder:

The technology described in this article is molecular nanotechnology (MNT). This is a big step beyond most of today's nanotech research, which deals with exploring and exploiting the properties of materials at the nanoscale. Industry has begun using the term nanotechnology to cover almost any technology significantly smaller than microtechnology, such as those involving nanoparticles or nanomaterials. This broad field will produce important and useful results, but their societal effects – both positive and negative – will be modest compared with later stages of the technology.

MNT, by contrast, is about constructing shapes, machines, and products at the atomic level – putting them together molecule by molecule. With parts only a few nanometers wide, it may become possible to build a supercomputer smaller than a grain of sand, a weapon smaller than a mosquito, or a self-contained nanofactory that sits on your kitchen counter.

Interesting stuff no matter where you stand on the kitchen counter. Now, suspend your disbelief or belief, and just read it.

Wednesday, January 07, 2004

"THE UNITED STATES NANOTECHNOLOGY BUSINESS is pooh-poohing the prospects for true molecular manufacturing, in no small part because it thinks -- wrongly in my opinion -- that by doing so it will forestall Luddite assaults on nanotechnology. But I spoke recently with one U.S. nanotech researcher who fears that the consequence of this attitude will be to forestall ground-breaking research here (while people focus on things like nanopants and comparatively modest improvements in materials and electronics) and allow other nations to get the jump on us."

I responded that those are all very worthwhile areas of study, especially since they appear to reflect a healthy balance between the advancement of nanotech as both a business and a science. Government funding for these kinds of projects -- on a piecmeal basis -- has been going on for a while, and I'm certain will continue. These researchers are the ones who are doing the important work, away from the spotlight, and will emerge with some amazing discoveries in nanoscale manufacturing.

In fact, the spirit of these kinds of grants runs counter to the words I'm hearing from some government and business spokespeople, who have declared nanoscale self-replication (and I'm not certain that the projects cited delve into that) to be impossible.

To me, the separate issue is one of government vision and priorities. My main argument is that U.S. policymakers need to rise above the commerce side of the debate and help encourage development of nanoscience without letting business interests become the sole driver of the research. As this NNCO reader pointed out, that is not entirely the case, but reading the nanotech bill alone, you'd think that the government's central goal was to spin off companies and develop new products. Is that it?

The proposed center to study nanotech's impact on society is a step in the right direction, but with only one model of nanotechnology deemed legitimate, I'm not certain what exactly will be studied. Many of the "societal and ethical implications" research that I've come across either assumes that molecular manufacturing is feasible, or is concerned with how to fight negative or misleading images of nanotechnology.

In other words, is the study of "societal implications" another way to control the message by stamping out all "incorrect" images of nanotech? It's very bizarre. I hear all the time that the nanotech business community and the government want to avoid another "GMO"-type controversy. So, its solution is to create a center on ethics that will discuss how to manage and conrol image and public perception?

It was determined that a feasibility study on MNT was not the best use of government resources, but a center for image control was deemed money well spent.

As the NNCO reader pointed out, though, there is research going on in molecular manufacturing -- even government-sponsored research -- just as there are government-funded projects to study societal and ethical implications. As the nanotech bill was being formulated, though, it was determined that research into societal and ethical implications should come together into a new center, while research into nanoscale manufacturing -- for various reasons -- was determined to be too "out there," not the best use of government resources and certainly not worthy of a national goal.

Friday, January 02, 2004

Michael Crichton's "Prey" is in paperback, and apparently available in Thailand. Here's a piece of a review from the Bangkok Post:

"Authors are expected to exaggerate to make their point and Crichton is no exception. Having characters assume shapes of one another, change sex, appear and disappear, kissing the choice way of passing on infections are a bit much. Not least when bodies turn to dust, then reform.

"Swarms of micro-processors and laboratory-developed molecules have intelligence and are able to reproduce, melting down micro-chips in human machines. They enter the engineers via kissing at the facility, with the exception of Jack and his assistant Mae."

Makes you wonder whether Rick Smalley's argument against molecular nanotechnology was based on a reading of "Prey":

"You still do not appear to understand the impact of my short piece in Scientific American. Much like you can't make a boy and a girl fall in love with each other simply by pushing them together, you cannot make precise chemistry occur as desired between two molecular objects with simple mechanical motion along a few degrees of freedom in the assembler-fixed frame of reference. Chemistry, like love, is more subtle than that. You need to guide the reactants down a particular reaction coordinate, and this coordinate treads through a many-dimensional hyperspace."

Speaking of "Prey," I thought I'd make myself known on the Michael Crichton message board and see if anybody in that audience is interested in delving deeper.

And from NanoDot, comes news of a speech by Crichton at CalTech, in which he derides "consensus science." Crichton says:

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics."